7 ms·

I would be absolutely comfortable with him leading Mozilla. No, I don't hate you, no, I don't hate gays, no, I'm not sorry you feel like Eich has insulted you,

by krick 6y ago

I would be absolutely comfortable with him leading Mozilla. No, I don't hate you, no, I don't hate gays, no, I'm not sorry you feel like Eich has insulted you, I completely don't give a fuck. What I give a fuck about, though, is having a good browser, and since making good browsers has zero relationship to being either pro or anti same-sex marriage, I wouldn't be less comfortable because of the fact the organisation that makes a browser and other web-stuff is controlled by a guy that has a polar position on that matter to what I have. Heck, let me be blunt: if you cannot have a strong mutual disagreement (or even rivalry) with someone, but cooperate with him on the unrelated topic if it is mutually beneficial, it means you are a child and your opinion shouldn't be listened to anyway (let's ignore the fact that behaving like a child turns out to be good for your political career today). As a side-note, pretty much unrelated to the point of that post, I don't see anything wrong with being opposed to same-sex marriage and promoting this opinion. As a matter of fact, I don't see why would anybody be opposed to that, but, hey, that's probably more the reason why somebody who is opposed to that should get a better PR so they could explain me their position. That is what constitutes healthy political climate, which is an opposite of calling a witch-hunt on anybody who has been caught supporting or even having a non-conventional political beliefs (which, ironically, today equals to having so called "conservative" beliefs). Having said all of that, I actually have no idea if Eich would have been a good CEO. I don't know how much in common this job has to what he has previously done, and if he would be good at it. I don't like the current leadership of Mozilla, but there's no proof that Eich would be any better, I simply have no information that would allow me to say "things would be different if only Eich was the CEO".

XMPPwocky 6y ago
I'm very sorry if I'm misinterpreting your first paragraph, but, to be clear- would you agree with the following statement? "I don't care if you aren't able to marry your partner, as long as it means there's maybe a better web browser." Because maybe I'm reading too much into it, but that seems to be what's implied. And - if that's the choice you make, well, fine. But it'd be nice to confirm that.
- krick 6y ago
  I would say you are not "misinterpreting" but rather "completely missing the point". Let's dissect your statement, "I don't care about {1}, as long as {2}" As I said in the second paragraph, I don't really see why would anybody be opposed to {1}. So it just so happens that I am pro-by-default, i.e. "pro, because why not", but I might have as well been strongly pro or strongly anti. I very well suspect there is a very good argument for anti-{1}, it's just that I've never heard of it, nor did I do much research on that topic. And if I do, I may end up falling into both strongly pro-{1} or strongly anti-{1} categories. The point is, that {1} is completely unrelated to {2}, so I can work on {2} together with somebody who has a polar beliefs to those I have on {1}, i.e. in both cases: - if I am strongly pro-{1} and he is strongly anti-{1} - if I am strongly anti-{1} and he is strongly pro-{1}
  - XMPPwocky 6y ago
    Okay- that makes more sense, gotcha. So you'd be OK working with somebody on a project, regardless of their actions outside that project? I don't think I would. For example, if somebody liked to spend their time skinning small animals alive and posting the videos on YouTube, I don't think I'd accept a job at their company. That's just a bit too far for me! But if it's not for you- well, guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.
    - krick 6y ago
      I'd like to start slowly wrapping it up, but, ok, I'll answer this one too. I won't argue about fairness of comparing {not allowing same-sex marriage} to {skinning small animals alive}, but even in that case your analogy should be about "someone who was arguing back in 2008 for keeping skinning small animals alive legal" while you voted to make it illegal (note, that votes split almost 50/50 back then, BTW, so that's a lot of people you choose to never work with). And, since you asked, yes, I know for a fact that some people I work with (including both superiors and subordinates) have wildly different political opinions on some topics than I have. With some we never discuss it, with others I'm comfortable enough to argue about that and even laugh them off sometimes. More than that, even some of my friends have strong opinions on which we differ. And with some we may go into mountains, and tie into the same rope (which, if you are not familiar, kinda means "trusting our lives to each other", quite literally), and not hate each other 100% of the time, because of some of our political beliefs don't match. And if all of that is a problem to you, yeah, I totally can agree to disagree with you, I can even respect that, as long as your disagreement doesn't mean hunting people down, because their opinion doesn't match yours. Now with that I kinda have to disagree.
blahbhthrow3748 6y ago
> Heck, let me be blunt: if you cannot have a strong mutual disagreement (or even rivalry) with someone, but cooperate with him on the unrelated topic if it is mutually beneficial, it means you are a child and your opinion shouldn't be listened to anyway As another gay person, this is such a damaging view that cis het people take. My humanity isn't the basis for a "disagreement or rivalry". I don't owe anything to people who don't believe I should have rights. It's not an interesting topic to argue about at the bar, it's my fucking life.
- mlindner 6y ago
  He's not attacking your humanity... Don't conflate the two.
- krick 6y ago
  > It's not an interesting topic to argue about at the bar, it's my fucking life. You see, the problem is that pretty much every political topic is someone's life. It hardly would be worth discussing otherwise. Thinking that the topic that concerns you personally is somehow universally special among the others is despicable arrogance. Now, I suppose that you are thinking that it is easy for me to say all that stuff about same-sex marriage, because I don't care. And you are kinda right. But let me assure you that there are topics in which I am pretty heavily emotionally invested and have a very strong opinion on (I won't specify what it is to not escalate this even further). And that some people I work with, and even have pretty good friendly relationships with have not only argued against, but outright have hobbies that go directly against to what I think is right. So I'd rather wish some of these hobbies to be banned (or, let's rather say "legally restricted"), and I said that to these people on more than one occasion. We both are fine about that. People cannot agree on everything. (There is also stuff that is currently banned that I want to be legal. Just to make it more symmetric, so that you don't think it's something about wanting things to be banned that is special.)
  - Jordrok 6y ago
    > You see, the problem is that pretty much every political topic is someone's life. It hardly would be worth discussing otherwise. Thinking that the topic that concerns you personally is somehow universally special among the others is despicable arrogance. I'm sorry, but no. Fuck. That. You listen to multiple people describe to you how a certain political stance directly harms them on a fundamental human level and your response is "I don't care, and you're arrogant to think I should care"? No, fuck that. It's good that we don't work together because I would absolutely have a problem with that attitude.
ptx 6y ago
> I don't see anything wrong with being opposed to same-sex marriage Assuming you're not opposed to the idea of marriage altogether, try to imagine different-sex marriages being illegal. Do you see now? (Just trying to help.)
- krick 6y ago
  No, I don't. If marriage would be a millenia-old tradition of status of same-sex pairs, that propagated into the legal system, and in the year 2020 there would be a petition to make the same status apply to different-sex pairs, and I would be a vocal proponent of that petition, I would still not see what's wrong with being opposed to that petition. That's his opinion, he has all the rights to defend it. And I would still despise anybody who has trouble understanding how active rivalry on one topic may co-exist with active cooperation on some other topic.
  - ptx 6y ago
    Your argument that we must make the effort to tolerate opposing views in order to cooperate on other issues isn't helped by stating as a side-note that this requires no effort for you personally because you're not actually opposed to that view. Anyway, back on the political question, on one side you have real people being affected and on the other you have vague and abstract claims of tradition. This sure makes it feel wrong to those people affected. Edit: Perhaps the real problem is with the framing of the question. Some people just want the right to a legally recognized partnership. Some people see marriage as having religious implications. In any case it's a complicated issue that we're not going to solve here.
- kybernetikos 6y ago
  > Assuming you're not opposed to the idea of marriage altogether, I tend to think that the state shouldn't be in the business of marriage at all. If private clubs / religions want to recognise a special ceremony between whatever groupings make sense for their club (someone suggested polyamorous families above) then they should go ahead. The state should have nothing to do with it, not recognising relationships that have had such a ceremony as different to relationships without. Now I know that is not currently the case, but I'd be more in favour of removing state recognition of any marriage than changing who the state lets get married. Places where it is genuinely useful to make the distinction should be replaced with thought-out duck-typing rather than nominative typing - if you've been living with someone as a partner for a certain amount of time, or are clearly trying to bring up children together then you should get the presumptive 'next of kin' status that the law finds helpful regardless of your ceremonial status. Or perhaps people should just have the right to add others to 'next of kin' status at will.
foldr 6y ago
>no, I don't hate gays Oh gee, thanks for not hating us. That's actually quite a low bar. Imagine someone describing a "healthy political climate" where anti-racist and pro-racist views got an equal hearing. It's so fucking depressing to see this stuff on HN.

by krick 6y ago

XMPPwocky 6y ago

I'm very sorry if I'm misinterpreting your first paragraph, but, to be clear- would you agree with the following statement? "I don't care if you aren't able to marry your partner, as long as it means there's maybe a better web browser." Because maybe I'm reading too much into it, but that seems to be what's implied. And - if that's the choice you make, well, fine. But it'd be nice to confirm that.

krick 6y ago
I would say you are not "misinterpreting" but rather "completely missing the point". Let's dissect your statement, "I don't care about {1}, as long as {2}" As I said in the second paragraph, I don't really see why would anybody be opposed to {1}. So it just so happens that I am pro-by-default, i.e. "pro, because why not", but I might have as well been strongly pro or strongly anti. I very well suspect there is a very good argument for anti-{1}, it's just that I've never heard of it, nor did I do much research on that topic. And if I do, I may end up falling into both strongly pro-{1} or strongly anti-{1} categories. The point is, that {1} is completely unrelated to {2}, so I can work on {2} together with somebody who has a polar beliefs to those I have on {1}, i.e. in both cases: - if I am strongly pro-{1} and he is strongly anti-{1} - if I am strongly anti-{1} and he is strongly pro-{1}
- XMPPwocky 6y ago
  Okay- that makes more sense, gotcha. So you'd be OK working with somebody on a project, regardless of their actions outside that project? I don't think I would. For example, if somebody liked to spend their time skinning small animals alive and posting the videos on YouTube, I don't think I'd accept a job at their company. That's just a bit too far for me! But if it's not for you- well, guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.
  - krick 6y ago
    I'd like to start slowly wrapping it up, but, ok, I'll answer this one too. I won't argue about fairness of comparing {not allowing same-sex marriage} to {skinning small animals alive}, but even in that case your analogy should be about "someone who was arguing back in 2008 for keeping skinning small animals alive legal" while you voted to make it illegal (note, that votes split almost 50/50 back then, BTW, so that's a lot of people you choose to never work with). And, since you asked, yes, I know for a fact that some people I work with (including both superiors and subordinates) have wildly different political opinions on some topics than I have. With some we never discuss it, with others I'm comfortable enough to argue about that and even laugh them off sometimes. More than that, even some of my friends have strong opinions on which we differ. And with some we may go into mountains, and tie into the same rope (which, if you are not familiar, kinda means "trusting our lives to each other", quite literally), and not hate each other 100% of the time, because of some of our political beliefs don't match. And if all of that is a problem to you, yeah, I totally can agree to disagree with you, I can even respect that, as long as your disagreement doesn't mean hunting people down, because their opinion doesn't match yours. Now with that I kinda have to disagree.

blahbhthrow3748 6y ago

> Heck, let me be blunt: if you cannot have a strong mutual disagreement (or even rivalry) with someone, but cooperate with him on the unrelated topic if it is mutually beneficial, it means you are a child and your opinion shouldn't be listened to anyway As another gay person, this is such a damaging view that cis het people take. My humanity isn't the basis for a "disagreement or rivalry". I don't owe anything to people who don't believe I should have rights. It's not an interesting topic to argue about at the bar, it's my fucking life.

mlindner 6y ago
He's not attacking your humanity... Don't conflate the two.
krick 6y ago
> It's not an interesting topic to argue about at the bar, it's my fucking life. You see, the problem is that pretty much every political topic is someone's life. It hardly would be worth discussing otherwise. Thinking that the topic that concerns you personally is somehow universally special among the others is despicable arrogance. Now, I suppose that you are thinking that it is easy for me to say all that stuff about same-sex marriage, because I don't care. And you are kinda right. But let me assure you that there are topics in which I am pretty heavily emotionally invested and have a very strong opinion on (I won't specify what it is to not escalate this even further). And that some people I work with, and even have pretty good friendly relationships with have not only argued against, but outright have hobbies that go directly against to what I think is right. So I'd rather wish some of these hobbies to be banned (or, let's rather say "legally restricted"), and I said that to these people on more than one occasion. We both are fine about that. People cannot agree on everything. (There is also stuff that is currently banned that I want to be legal. Just to make it more symmetric, so that you don't think it's something about wanting things to be banned that is special.)
- Jordrok 6y ago
  > You see, the problem is that pretty much every political topic is someone's life. It hardly would be worth discussing otherwise. Thinking that the topic that concerns you personally is somehow universally special among the others is despicable arrogance. I'm sorry, but no. Fuck. That. You listen to multiple people describe to you how a certain political stance directly harms them on a fundamental human level and your response is "I don't care, and you're arrogant to think I should care"? No, fuck that. It's good that we don't work together because I would absolutely have a problem with that attitude.

ptx 6y ago

> I don't see anything wrong with being opposed to same-sex marriage Assuming you're not opposed to the idea of marriage altogether, try to imagine different-sex marriages being illegal. Do you see now? (Just trying to help.)

krick 6y ago
No, I don't. If marriage would be a millenia-old tradition of status of same-sex pairs, that propagated into the legal system, and in the year 2020 there would be a petition to make the same status apply to different-sex pairs, and I would be a vocal proponent of that petition, I would still not see what's wrong with being opposed to that petition. That's his opinion, he has all the rights to defend it. And I would still despise anybody who has trouble understanding how active rivalry on one topic may co-exist with active cooperation on some other topic.
- ptx 6y ago
  Your argument that we must make the effort to tolerate opposing views in order to cooperate on other issues isn't helped by stating as a side-note that this requires no effort for you personally because you're not actually opposed to that view. Anyway, back on the political question, on one side you have real people being affected and on the other you have vague and abstract claims of tradition. This sure makes it feel wrong to those people affected. Edit: Perhaps the real problem is with the framing of the question. Some people just want the right to a legally recognized partnership. Some people see marriage as having religious implications. In any case it's a complicated issue that we're not going to solve here.
kybernetikos 6y ago
> Assuming you're not opposed to the idea of marriage altogether, I tend to think that the state shouldn't be in the business of marriage at all. If private clubs / religions want to recognise a special ceremony between whatever groupings make sense for their club (someone suggested polyamorous families above) then they should go ahead. The state should have nothing to do with it, not recognising relationships that have had such a ceremony as different to relationships without. Now I know that is not currently the case, but I'd be more in favour of removing state recognition of any marriage than changing who the state lets get married. Places where it is genuinely useful to make the distinction should be replaced with thought-out duck-typing rather than nominative typing - if you've been living with someone as a partner for a certain amount of time, or are clearly trying to bring up children together then you should get the presumptive 'next of kin' status that the law finds helpful regardless of your ceremonial status. Or perhaps people should just have the right to add others to 'next of kin' status at will.

foldr 6y ago

>no, I don't hate gays Oh gee, thanks for not hating us. That's actually quite a low bar. Imagine someone describing a "healthy political climate" where anti-racist and pro-racist views got an equal hearing. It's so fucking depressing to see this stuff on HN.